It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.info

simonshack wrote:Don't think so, Heiwa. The ESB is correctly not seen - as it stands just beyond the left edge of this canvas.

Yes exactly... On 5th ave, A bit left and to the behind of both, 1 and 5 Penn Plaza (Allegedly Devin Clarks and CNN rooftops static camera perspective.) I spent a good time in Google 3d landscape looking at the perspectives both from Penn plaza, and the WTC. And an interesting fact, I found out... 1 and 5 penn plaza are about the same height as half way up the empire state building... As you can see on this shot I compared. You can see the Empire on the left..

Thanks for pointing out the source of that video I linked to in my previous post. I was aware that the shot actually didn't show 3 towers, only that it could be taken that way. I showed the clip to a friend and her first reaction was "umm, why are there 3 towers showing?". However one describes it, I think we can agree that it's not possible in that shot for the tower shown on the left to also be overlapping the tower to it's right in the background, given the same width of both towers.

Thanks also for the explanation of the ESB - I should have explained, but I was thinking of that distance shot compared to other close up shots that do show the ESB. A moment's comparison would show that something's funky with at least one of the shots.

Simon, it's a similar angle, but your first video doesn't have the McGraw-Hill building or 1 Penn Plaza in the foreground.

In a search I was conducting while awaiting a response I stumbled across these images that were supposedly taken by Seth McCalliser of AFP/Getty Images. A hangman style jumper image is also credited to him.

Here's another one supposedly taken seconds later. Amazing how the background gradient drops with the frame. I'm assuming it should remain constant? The magical moving building is also in the shot, but not to the far right as it is in Devin's footage. It'd be useful to know the name of that building. Has anyone checked as to whether it has any resemblence to anything physical in the real world?

In "9/11 amateur part 1" the CBS and Devin Clark planes look very similar. The following are images taken from part one of the CBS archive footage at 33:37 after the 2nd 'hit' when Bryant Gumble asks his director to zoom out so that he can get a better perspective of as to whether one or two towers were on fire. On the left is the original. On the right is one where tones and highlights have been auto-optimised.

Watch it again, without the sound, and take a good look at all the people, and what they are up to. Their body language, their focus of attention etc. Watch it again, with your hand over the portion of the screen that contains imagery of a smoking WTC tower. What do you see?

These people are tourists, and passers-by on an ordinary day. There is no sign that any of them have just witnessed an unprecedented terrorist attack, or anything out of the ordinary.

Look at the lady on the right hand side buys some food, and wanders away. Look at the lady walking her dog, wandering away from the WTC. Look at the guy in the construction helmet, nonchalantly wandering away from the WTC. There is a guy rubbernecking with a pair of binoculars, but his body language looks more like than of a birdwatcher, than someone looking at a smoking skyscraper. In fact, none of these people look hysterical, panicked, frightened, or even confused, and they are not jockeying to get a better view of the smoking tower in the background.

It's clear to me that the smoke (at least) has been added after the footage was filmed. The only thing in the clip that gives you that impression is the smoking tower in the background, and the screaming in the soundtrack, none of which, on closer examination, actually seems to be emanating from anyone in the video. I could believe that the video is from just before the towers collapsed, almost an hour after the second tower was hit, and that people have by now calmed down, some of them deciding there's nothing more to see. But how does this fit with the soundtrack of screaming, hysteria, and some woman ranting about how whatever she saw was "not American Airlines"?

What's even more disturbing is that later, the host of In Plane Sight actively defends this obviously fake footage, claiming that the food-buying lady is the one ranting about "American Airlines" (which is a weird ). See part 5 of 6 1:55. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ntw2SjfXqI

Either this guy is very gullible, suffering from a major confirmation bias ("it must be real because it fits my pet theory"), or his crew have doctored this clip themselves. This clip has no watermark or other visible attribution, and the host never mentions its source (except "tv news"). Does anyone know the purported origin of this clip?

strypey wrote:Either this guy is very gullible, suffering from a major confirmation bias ("it must be real because it fits my pet theory"), or his crew have doctored this clip themselves. This clip has no watermark or other visible attribution, and the host never mentions its source (except "tv news"). Does anyone know the purported origin of this clip?

That's an altered copy of "In Plane Site".

I have two versions of "In plane site" on my PC. One is the original shorter version (dubbed in italian, strangely enough, by professional actors), and the other one comes from the DVD and is labeled "Director's cut", I believe dated around 2004. I don't remember exactly where from I downloaded the two versions but the interesting thing is that neither version contain the clip you just referred to.

I think that copy of "In Plane Site" on youtube has been altered deliberately. In the two versions I have, propagandist David von Kleist refers to "reports" "televised only once" that we soon learn are about supposed explosions in the buildings. After the introduction, a number of clips start rolling, all with interviews or reports that in fact mention explosions.

The clip with the lady yelling "that wasn't American Airlines" isn't one of them and could not be one of them, simply because it has nothing to do with what the von Kleist is talking about. It has to do with another sort of conspiracy referring to the airplane having been a military or special airplane, and not with explosions heard in the building before the collapse.

So as I said, I am pretty sure this version of "In Plane Site" has been altered and not necessarily with the approval or direct intervention of the original propagandists/agents that produced this piece of crap movie.

Overall, an interesting find and yet another proof, if it was necessary, that history in the digital world is constantly and subtly rewritten, edited, adjusted.

nonhocapito wrote:I think that copy of "In Plane Site" on youtube has been altered deliberately..

Hmm. The plot thickens...

nonhocapito wrote:The clip with the lady yelling "that wasn't American Airlines" isn't one of them and could not be one of them, simply because it has nothing to do with what the von Kleist is talking about. It has to do with another sort of conspiracy referring to the airplane having been a military or special airplane, and not with explosions heard in the building before the collapse.

What about the second appearance of that clip, where von Kleist purports to prove that it's a real clip by slowing down hot dog lady and supposedly matching the movements of her mouth to the "not American Airlines" dialogue (see my original post for the time that this appears)? Is that in the Director's Cut version you have?

nonhocapito wrote:I think that copy of "In Plane Site" on youtube has been altered deliberately..

Hmm. The plot thickens...

nonhocapito wrote:The clip with the lady yelling "that wasn't American Airlines" isn't one of them and could not be one of them, simply because it has nothing to do with what the von Kleist is talking about. It has to do with another sort of conspiracy referring to the airplane having been a military or special airplane, and not with explosions heard in the building before the collapse.

What about the second appearance of that clip, where von Kleist purports to prove that it's a real clip by slowing down hot dog lady and supposedly matching the movements of her mouth to the "not American Airlines" dialogue (see my original post for the time that this appears)? Is that in the Director's Cut version you have?

OK it was probably hasty of me to declare that clip altered in some malicious way (more than the whole movie is already malicious in itself).

The "It was not American Airlines" clip in fact is present in the movie in both the versions I have at the mark shown in that 5th part on youtube.

So maybe there simply are more than two versions, and in an early one that clip was also shown by mistake in the "explosion" series of clips from which it was later removed. Nothing too special about that.

So, sorry that my post didn't really add anything to this clue then, since there is still no answer as to where the clip (obviously staged, probably in front of a green screen, and almost certainly with fake soundtrack like you said) comes from.

[EDIT: With all the work there is behind producing a movie, and experiencing how proud one can be when collecting evidence for a work of this magnitude, it is almost insulting (albeit not surprising) to see that nowhere in the movie nor the official website the sources of the clips are mentioned.

Real researchers would never fail to mention their sources either during the movie or at the end or in some other available form over the internet.]

nonhocapito wrote:So maybe there simply are more than two versions, and in an early one that clip was also shown by mistake in the "explosion" series of clips from which it was later removed. Nothing too special about that.

Version management's a bitch

nonhocapito wrote:So, sorry that my post didn't really add anything to this clue then, since there is still no answer as to where the clip (obviously staged, probably in front of a green screen, and almost certainly with fake soundtrack like you said) comes from.

My guess was that the background of the smoking gun... er... tower has been pasted over the original background, in some stock footage of tourists being touristy. If I'm right, and the original background has been removed, for all we know the guy with the binoculars could be looking at the Empire State, the Hoover Dam, or the Grand Canyon. The soundtrack clearly has nothing to do with anything going on in the foreground, and as I said, von Kleist's attempt to connect hot dog lady with the "not American Airlines" comment in the soundtrack is suspicious.

nonhocapito wrote:nowhere in the movie nor the official website the sources of the clips are mentioned.

That's a shame. Without knowing the source of the clip, all this proves is that *somebody* as *some point* has made a clip of fake 911 footage. If we could locate this clip in any of the official tv news footage, it would be conclusive proof that news organisations were playing faked footage (knowingly or unknowingly).

nonhocapito wrote:Real researchers would never fail to mention their sources either during the movie or at the end or in some other available form over the internet.]

You seem convinced that von Kleist and his crew are not genuine in their motives. As a newcomer to this forum, I'm wondering why? Is there a thread you could point me to which gives some background information about In Plane Sight and its crew?

strypey wrote:My guess was that the background of the smoking gun... er... tower has been pasted over the original background, in some stock footage of tourists being touristy. If I'm right, and the original background has been removed, for all we know the guy with the binoculars could be looking at the Empire State, the Hoover Dam, or the Grand Canyon. The soundtrack clearly has nothing to do with anything going on in the foreground, and as I said, von Kleist's attempt to connect hot dog lady with the "not American Airlines" comment in the soundtrack is suspicious.

nonhocapito wrote:nowhere in the movie nor the official website the sources of the clips are mentioned.

That's a shame. Without knowing the source of the clip, all this proves is that *somebody* as *some point* has made a clip of fake 911 footage. If we could locate this clip in any of the official tv news footage, it would be conclusive proof that news organisations were playing faked footage (knowingly or unknowingly).

nonhocapito wrote:Real researchers would never fail to mention their sources either during the movie or at the end or in some other available form over the internet.]

You seem convinced that von Kleist and his crew are not genuine in their motives. As a newcomer to this forum, I'm wondering why? Is there a thread you could point me to which gives some background information about In Plane Sight and its crew?

strypey, I realize now that you really need to explore this forum more and become more familiar with our research.

1) It has been shown and demonstrated the use of green screen and actors for MOST if not ALL the scenes of 9/11 and especially around the scenes of the smoking/collapsing towers. In most of the scenes you will find clear traces of artificial reality, animation, and superimposed actors and scenes. The scene highlighted by you in "In plane site" is no exception.

2) There could never be footage with "normal" random tourists pasted on top of a fake scene like you suggest, simply because one tourist could recognize him or herself. Rather, actors/agents and virtual people were used everywhere in the 9/11 virtual reality. Once again, this has been observed and proved several times in a multitude of videos, be them amateur videos or official TV footage.

3) There is not a one thread where to find all the information as this kind of research and its findings spread all over the 9/11 material and beyond. If at this stage you want to focus on the techniques and methods that allowed the creation of the whole fake 9/11 New York City scenario and landscape, just read through the threads in this section "SEPTEMBER CLUES: the 9/11 digital simulation exposed".

4) The people behind "In plane site", just like those behind "Loose change" and all those "conspiracy" movies of the sort, are cointel agents whose main purpose is to drive the people with questions into blind alleys toying forever around the unprovable "inside jobs" without ever admitting the idea that things could have been entirely faked, Hollywood-faked, using a good combination of special effects, media control and police surveillance.

(Just read about or watch the Hollywood movie "Wag the Dog", to understand why not taking into consideration the possibility of fakery in the media is today completely irresponsible).

But it is not just that these agents of disinformation censor and ridicule the idea of media fakery. It is especially that most if not all the material from which they derive their theories is manipulated, faked and flawed. Once you take videos like those of Evan Fairbanks or the Naudet brothers or the whole of TV footage at face value, even if it is to contradict the official story, you are not making real research, but rather lending credibility to the official story by granting the status of document of reality to the material created in and around the official story of 9/11.

5) If you want to hang around here, you must be familiar with the reasons and research behind the following statements:

a) there were no planes;b) the burning and collapse of the towers as that of the Pentagon as presented to the public was an artificial creation; nobody was allowed to witness and document the actual collapsing of the towers probably due to the easily recognizable method of controlled demolition used to bring them down;c) given the completely controlled environment in which the whole scam took place, it goes without saying that there were no real victims, as the close-up study of the alleged victims and their ridiculous biographies proves without doubt.

If any of this sounds outlandish or unacceptable to you, you should definitely document yourself a lot more.

nonhocapito wrote:2) There could never be footage with "normal" random tourists pasted on top of a fake scene like you suggest, simply because one tourist could recognize him or herself. Rather, actors/agents and virtual people were used everywhere in the 9/11 virtual reality.

In relation to this particularl clip, I consider the green screen explanation unlikely. If the scene was staged, surely these "actors/agents and virtual people" would behave in a way that at least fits the scenario, if not the soundtrack? It was the very fact they are behaving like normal tourists on a normal day that tipped me off to the fake nature of this clip.

Because we don't know where the clip comes from, it's possible that someone on von Kleist's team created it, and also possible that someone else fed it to them, passing it off as real footage they had obtained. For all we know, some teenagers with a copy of Adobe Premiere could have made that clip, using footage they'd filmed themselves, and a background copied and pasted from recorded news footage.

Even if it turns out that this clip was played on the news as "real" footage, what are the chances of any of the handful of people in the video seeing it at all? Of them looking past the dramatic background, and the misleading soundtrack, and recognising themselves? If I'm right that this is stock footage, with the background swapped out along the horizon line, as I said, it could have been filmed *anywhere*. If these people were filmed somewhere other than NY, perhaps without their explicit knowledge, particularly if it's a long time ago, why would they make the association between their vague memory of being a tourist somewhere, and this scene which the authoritarive news media is telling them is NY? Particularly when their critical faculties are being distracted by the smoking tower background, and the screaming soundtrack.

Even in the unlikely event any of the people in it did recognise themselves, what are the chances anyone would believe them?

Again, I'm not sure the points below belong in this thread, but since you brought them up...

nonhocapito wrote:4) The people behind "In plane site", just like those behind "Loose change" and all those "conspiracy" movies of the sort, are cointel agents whose main purpose is to drive the people with questions into blind alleys...

This is a pretty broad generalisation, for which your supporting argument appears to be:

nonhocapito wrote:Once you take videos like those of Evan Fairbanks or the Naudet brothers or the whole of TV footage at face value, even if it is to contradict the official story, you are not making real research, but rather lending credibility to the official story by granting the status of document of reality to the material created in and around the official story of 9/11.

This method relies on IF>THEN logic. IF the official story is true THEN the footage should be consistent with it. By using scientific tests, you examine the footage to see if it fits the story, and build physical models based on the story, and see if they fit the footage. If the physics required by the official story does *not* fit the footage, you have proof by contradiction that EITHER the official story isn't true OR the footage isn't real (or BOTH). Incidentally, what I've presented here is a proof by contradiction that lending credibility to the official story is not the inevitable consequence of taking the footage at face value, or the only plausible reason for doing so.

Do you have any more substantial arguments to support your claim that all 911 truthers outside the CluesForum circle of trust are "cointel agents"?

nonhocapito wrote:5) If you want to hang around here, you must be familiar with the reasons and research behind the following statements:

You have stated on other threads that you are interested in encouraging critical thinkers, not followers. At this stage, I do not see how the various claims you've made are self-evident. As I explore the contents of these forums, we'll see if this view changes.

nonhocapito wrote:a) there were no planes;

As a statement of theory, this is fine. I do agree, of course, that real planes were not the cause of the towers collapsing (to me this is conclusively shown by the collapse of Tower 7). However, as I have said numerous times to the fellow researcher who introduced me to this forum, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even if you have conclusively demonstrated that every photo and video of planes on 911 is fake, that does not prove there were no planes. All it proves is that there are no real photos and videos of planes.

nonhocapito wrote:b) the burning and collapse of the towers as that of the Pentagon as presented to the public was an artificial creation; nobody was allowed to witness and document the actual collapsing of the towers probably due to the easily recognizable method of controlled demolition used to bring them down;

Again I'm not sure this follows. Every piece of video I've seen of any of the towers collapsing makes it look exactly like a controlled demolition, and I have thought so since day 1.If it was possible for those responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings to totally control the area around the WTC campus, and all media emanating from it, why were they not able to produce fake news footage that made the collapse look more like they could have been caused by planes exploding? Why did they not fake the towers collapsing assymetrically, for example, slumping towards the side which got hit? Why did they not fake a more convinving (not to mention physically possible) shot of the second hit?

nonhocapito wrote:c) given the completely controlled environment in which the whole scam took place, it goes without saying that there were no real victims, as the close-up study of the alleged victims and their ridiculous biographies proves without doubt.

Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even if you have conclusively proved that some, or even many, of the purported victims of 911 are not real people (and some of the stories I've looked at are certainly questionable), this does not prove that there were no victims. All it proves is that the various victim counts and biographies given in the official narrative need to be taken with a grain of salt.

nonhocapito wrote:If any of this sounds outlandish or unacceptable to you, you should definitely document yourself a lot more.

You can't deny that it must sound outlandish to anyone who has not had access to the same body of evidence and arguments you have, or the same time to digest it. That doesn't mean it's wrong. Quantam mechanics sounded outlandish to Einstein, leading to his famous quote that "God does not play dice with the world". Einstein was wrong, and much experimental evidence has emerged over the decades to support the theories of quantam mechanics. So, despite coming "out of left field", none of what you say is unacceptable. These are your theories, and you have spent a lot of time assembling evidence to support them. I am posting here because I suspect they have some merit, and I want to learn more.

While I understand that you don't want to be rehashing the same discussions ad nauseum, reading the entire contents of this forum, let alone the various sources linked, and watching the embedded videos, would take many months. Much of it presumably consists of trolling and disinfo, and the arguments between the admins and genuine researchers, and the entities attempting to insert this time-wasting material, which it would be nice not to have to read. What would be useful for newcomers to the forum is a primer which summarizes your various claims, and the evidence for each, with links back to the forum pages in which the productive parts of the discussion took place (or at least some representative examples of them).

On Drilling for Truth, I have tried out a 'claim and counterclaim' format, using a wiki, where I break every issue into the most specific possible points, and document examples of the claims and counterclaims, and links to any documentary evidence presented for each (all of it archived using WebCite - see my post in Tools of the Trade). If you want some more documentation of who I am, this would be a good place to start.http://www.coactivate.org/projects/dril ... oject-home

stripey, the information contained in this forum is crucial to better understand what is happening everyday in the newsmedia and its effects in the world we live in, so I'm comfortable in saying that it is time well spent to dedicate days or weeks to read it through and digest it.

As to all your arguments, I basically disagree with all of them but I will not keep on discussing it with you, because this already sounds like a lot of similar discussions I and others already had and that are documented on this forum. Just let it be said that there are a lot of considerations in place, and one does not have them all always at his fingertips to pour out on command to anyone who wants to challenge them.

Only one of your arguments is worth discussing for me at this stage because you seem really hung up on it: the idea of "random real tourists" pasted on a fake scene. This is a failing one. As I said, even if the chances are slim, it would be completely irresponsible to risk having people recognize themselves. As to "kids" making the video for sport, this isn't even worth mentioning.All 9/11 images are controlled. They might be sloppy, but nothing passed through to the mainstream media (and yes "In plane site" is mainstream media because of the crucial role it had in shaping the "conspiracy theories" behind 9/11 at an early stage) that was not controlled centrally by the hoaxers behind this scam. These hoaxers obviously had studios and actors at their disposal and they used them. Then they filled the blanks with virtual reality. No reason to argue that for that scene it went any differently, because there is no evidence to show this. That scene isn't any different from all the other scenes that show people looking at the burning or collapsing towers.By the way, the people in that scene don't exactly behave like random people. They are shown standing in the middle of the street looking at a scene, which is not random behavior. The simple fact that they do not look persuasive to you, it's because they were filmed in a studio and the scene wasn't originally there. So they are just pretending to react to it. As to the green screen, it is the fastest safest way to superimpose a scene filmed in studio on another so for the occam razor I don't have any reason to think of another explanation. Green border leftovers have been observed sevral times in other 9/11 videos so it is safe to say this is one of the methods in place that must be taken into consideration.

Once again, all your other objections have been responded to ad nauseam so you will forgive me if I am not going to be one to repeat them for you. Read through the forum. It isn't boring.